What plant it is? .....1/1 bmp

michelle sterling misterli at NMSU.Edu
Thu Oct 2 13:00:07 EST 1997

David,  I just joined this newsgroup and this is also the first group I've
ever tried to converse with.  I wanted to tell you that was very well said
and I am a prime example of those unfamiliar with netiquette.  I could use
a few tips if you have any.  Thanks Michelle

On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, #gondwana wrote:

> A day ago, I posted a letter, the gist of which was to say that a first
> time netiquette offence of an inadvertent nature does not call for
> savage attacks on the person who inadvertly errs.
> I respond below to a reply made by Alan J Holmes; I apologise for
> changing the order of the points covered.
> > [ . . . ] some subscribers _have_ to
> > pay for every byte which passes down the phone lines
> The point raised here is certainly fair. And lower income people
> undoubtedly feel the pinch more greatly and disproportionately. Data
> transfer costs can be high indeed, and we should all accordingly be able
> to choose what we pull off the wires. Moreover, it is infuriating to,
> against your will, have costly and often commercially offensive material
> intentionally thrust in your face by spammers. Everyone can agree that
> willful spammers deserve the ire of everyone. But Juan Carlos was not a
> spammer, and he was not acting with intent (see below).
> As a practical matter, I am curious about the following: Cannot a usenet
> download be interrupted the minute it is perceived to be undesirable? I
> use Netscape on a Macintosh for all Internet functions, and I was easily
> able to abort the usenet download originally in question by clicking on
> the "Stop" button. Is this not available to others, who use other
> browsers/email-utilities as well? It wont work for me with email, so
> perhaps other platforms/applications may not offer this protection in
> usenet circumstances. But if they do, it might help the people who need
> to count bytes and pence, better protect themselves from this sort of
> problem.
> > As has been said time and time again,
> Perhaps. But the very nature of usenet, especially to those who are
> trying to learn about it, causes people to miss threads. Sometimes the
> need to read threads is not evident from the brief title. Other times,
> one's own server blocks them from view for any number of reasons.
> Besides, given the growth of the Internet, there will be a continuous
> flow of new people for quite some time, all of which are not privy to
> what has gone before, and we must not be so haughty that we forget what
> it's like to be new to something and be trying to get one's bearings.
> Even you, Alan, despite your broad knowledge and impatience for those
> who do not yet possess it, must have at some point been new and
> inexperienced and bewildered and intimidated. Have you forgotten how it
> feels? Have you never been mistaken? Made an error?
> > you should
> > be reserving your compassion for them [subscribers paying high costs
> > of involuntary downloads] not some ignorant fellow.
> > 
> I have compassion for everyone who suffers an undeserved injury: The
> struggling pensioner who had to pay 50 pence for rubbish he didn't want,
> as well as the inexperienced user who bumbles good-naturedly into an
> arena he has never before ventured, not realizing that an attempt to
> learn, become informed and maybe even have friendly cross-cultural
> contact would reward him with vicious attacks for his unforgivable
> crime: inexperience. The fact of the matter is, both are deserving of
> compassion. Besides, the problem may be technological: It would seen
> current software lacks the finesse to permit aborting an unwanted
> download.
> > >shoot him! Maybe we should virtually disembowel him as well?
> > 
> > Sounds good!
> > 
> Childish. Unproductive. For all your wit and intellect, this comment is
> more to be expected from a 13-year-old in a schoolyard. How does this
> address the overall issue of education of the inexperienced to effect a
> change that benefits everyone? We are looking at a problem of education
> and technology, not a problem of intentional misconduct by miserable
> miscreants. If you want to solve the problem, a solution needs to
> address the underlying cause, rather than myopically focus on the
> symptom.
> > 
> > He could have investigated the groups first, made a few enquiries
> > as to how he should post, what he should post.
> To "investigate" groups first, you must assume conversant knowledge of
> usenet and the Internet. Not only is this not universal knowledge, but
> indeed, if one is unaware that one is lacking information, one can't
> realise that the information must be sought. Many people are bewildered
> and even frightened by the 'Net, which slows down their assimilation
> into this extremely arcane sub-culture. Snarls, snaps, and personal
> attacks cause further intimidation, and reduce motivation for learning
> and research of information. Gentle, informative communication, on the
> other hand, reduces intimidation and encourages learning and sensitivity
> by the newbie to issues like this.
> People make mistakes. You take your own knowledge for granted and the
> resulting knee-jerk reaction merely curses the darkness, but doesn't
> even attempt to light a candle.
> Another thing you may take for granted as well, is that not everyone has
> easy access to usenet, other than through DejaNews on the web. If that
> is the case, the only way to get responses to postings made through
> DejaNews would be through responses supplied via email. Moreover, this
> could also explain why someone lacks access to threads regarding rules
> and such (as you know, DejaNews is search-engine and key-word based, so
> the entire wealth of threads and topics might be invisible to her/him
> altogether).
> > 
> > But he didn't bother, just pushed all the rubbish all over the
> > world in a _large_ number of groups.  Some of them possibly
> > unrelated
> Perhaps my newsreader is mistaken, but I counted only 4 newsgroups he
> posted to, all of which were either gardening or botanically oriented,
> and his post (including his large binary) was for the sole purpose of
> plant identification. Moreover, if he has reason to believe the plant is
> exotic or rare in his native country, it is altogether reasonable to
> post globally in the hopes that someone, somewhere on the planet would
> find the plant familiar. That is, after all, part of the magic of the
> Internet: that ability for all peoples, throughout the earth, to
> communicate, share and exchange ideas and information. His
> implementation (i.e. use of attached binary image) may have been
> inappropriate, but his intentions were entirely reasonable and
> consistent with the purposes of the medium.
> > but did he care, not on your nelly.
> The unstated assumption you are making here is that caring must be
> equated only with doing all the investigation and enquiries you insist
> upon, and uncaring must be equated with a failure to do these things and
> with the intentional pushing of "rubbish" all over the world. Care
> requires intent, but you seem to suggest as well that lack of caring
> also requires intent. Therefore, when you conclude Juan Carlos is
> uncaring, and imply that he engaged in this conduct either with intent
> or reckless disregard of his acts on others. Q.E.D.
> Not quite. As I explained a moment ago, ignorance, failure to know or
> investigate, and the posting of his "rubbish" can be explained through
> inadvertence and good faith lack of knowledge, and difficulty with
> mastering the Internet. It would be another matter altogether if he
> repeated his conduct after being warned or notified, but this is not
> evidenced by the facts here. So your absolutist, easy-way-out, black and
> white logic does not necessarily result in a reliable conclusion. In
> fact, you really just don't know what the circumstances were surrounding
> his state of mind, and you lack the knowledge (i.e. you are yourself
> ignorant of the facts) to accurately judge Juan Carlos, much less to
> berate him as severely as you seek to do. Juan Carlos' ignorance could
> well have stemmed from good faith error...but yours stems from a willful
> rush to judgment.
> A little temperance is in order. People who are willing to learn the
> rules should be informed of them in a friendly and constructive fashion,
> and should be given the benefit of the doubt at least once. The ire and
> vitriol that you and others have shown thus far should be reserved for
> those who, once so informed of the rules, knowingly repeat their
> misconduct.
> David

More information about the Plantbio mailing list